Sunday Times story today about Mumsnet having to reveal posters' names

They do try.

Can I add to what @LornaMumsnet and @KateMumsnet both say

When I was on the receiving end, MNHQ were absolutely and utterly brilliant.

They explained and linked to the law, explained what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing.

There were lots of emails at the end of which we all felt safe in our positions and actions.

I know in this case the whole thread went but I'm sure that the posters with valid points to make will have been treated as considerately as I was.

In my case the court threat - just a lawyers letter - went to MN requesting details. We then has the option of removal of posts. As the defamation has then ceased they would have had a harder time proving damage, which is why it went no further.

This chap was very silly running to the press because as Enormous so rightly says, he has a beggar of a job getting rid of the google searches.

QE must regret their one as most recent MN posts start with "I found the thread and wondered what they wanted deleted"
Tee hee

It seems worrying that the court has ordered MN to hand over members details and PMs without their comments being found to be libellous? And without the members being asked if their posts can be deleted first (so that bit of law wasn't relevant)

YY. I thought that too. In previous cases I thought poster were given the option to either have their posts removed, or to provide their details. In this case a different "method" was used, and the deletion option was not available - MN had to provide their details.

Just came across this through another thread.

It seems worrying that the court has ordered MN to hand over members details and PMs without their comments being found to be libellous? And without the members being asked if their posts can be deleted first (so that bit of law wasn't relevant).

Does this mean the court can order MN, who won't contest it, to hand over anyone's user name without evidence they have done anything wrong?

This is always the issue with defamation. If you sue you can draw more attention to the original allegedly defamatory comment and sometimes you also lose as Andrew Mitchell did and have to pay a lot of costs. It is a very risky business. However on line comment can cause millions of financial losses these days so you can see why people want things they regard as defamatory removed.

The other route I sometimes advise clients is paying or doing it yourself to have the search result on Google/Yahoo etc come low down on a search because of a large volume of other content you or the person you pay generates about your business. That works too as a second solution. A third solution which I suppose is part of the defamation one is the new right to be forgotten in an EU case which only works in the EU but with Google you can fill in a form and have stuff removed on defamation and other grounds. So 3 routes, defamation, the right to be forgotten (which does not always apply of course) and the generation such large volume new content that the original stuff does not appear until about page 20 of a search.

I was told a story by my father, once. A matelot on a battleship - if I recall HMS Xxxx -was caught by his shipmates in flagrante delicto with a local sheep. Near Scapa Flow.

Nothing was said on his return to the ship but when it returned to Portsmouth, every man in every ship at anchor there, lined the yard arms and the battleship slowly made her way to her berth to the sound of thousands of sailors all going Baaaaaaaaaa!
Never made the papers that story but then I guess it was wartime. 
Sorry - it was just your remark about the 'farmyard animals'. 

And I guess he didn't sue either.

The trigger for defamation is that the statement is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013
I can't imagine any circumstances in which a judge would find that someone saying "I think X is a berk" would cause serious harm to X.

The kind of statement that you could sue for would be:
"X's serious negligence in carrying out their professional duties caused me disastrous damage"
"X claims to be a lawyer but actually got their degree out of a cracker"
"X used to work as a prostitute"
"X has sex with farm animals"
"X claims that her husband was killed by a burglar but I think that she killed him herself"

So, if you say, 'I felt Mrs Y was a berk' - is that ok?
Or, 'I felt Mrs Y was behaving like a berk' - is that just personal opinion and therefore ok?

I thought defamation was the general overall word and under that you have two types - libel and slander.

www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/libel-and-slander/5047889.article

www.farrer.co.uk/Global/Briefings/-06%20Private%20Client/Fair%20comment%20to%20honest%20opinion%20-%20whats%20new.pdf

There are certainly a lot of cases www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/libel-cases-prompted-by-social-media-posts-rise-300-in-a-year-9805004.html and a lot of damage is done by untrue posts on line. People's lives can be destroyed so thankfully we have the legislation to protect us all.

Anyway we all agree that the more posters know to be careful what they say the better.

I'm assuming the posters in question had some personal experience of this doctor and weren't happy? Not sure as I never saw the thread. But if so it's a bit shit to sue your former patients if they weren't happy with results.

Defamation is not the same as libel

Defamation we have to prove that we did not (in effect)

I've read it's exceedingly expensive to bring a libel case before the courts. I wonder how much money he's prepared to chuck at this?

It's likely to cost him more than the average person has in the bank.

As you well know Xenia the old Libel rules and the new Defamation rules are not the same.
Opinion and fair comment are protected - as mine was ultimately

Proving loss from an internet post has yet to succeed anywhere

• I watch these things as after my experience I've helped several clients use the act to control vindictive sites

In my view some posters cross the line into libel and are not aware of the law or choose to ignore it. So the more we can make it cear the better.
I've a client who has lost £500,000 of business from untrue on-line comments. The few above suggesting they wish people could post what they like should try to put themselves on the other side.

Untrue comment on line can stick around for ages in all kinds of places and does massive damage so must be removed very quickly. Even if removed that does not mean no damage has been done of course and the person posting the material (or refusing to remove it) may well be liable for resulting losses.

When I was on the receiving end, MNHQ were absolutely fab.

Basically if MNHQ refuse to pass on your full details then MNHQ become legally liable for your comments and the site shuts down.

So MNHQ request that you provide truthful full details.
If you refuse then the claimant is entitled to use their systems to find you

But as I say, expressing an opinion is allowed

in my case, I said that QE were thin skinned
and their actions validated that opinion

Helpful update from MNHQ, and look forward to the further clarification.

I think the big difference between disclosing RL identities of MN posters and posters on most other online sites (Reddit and 4Chan excepted), is that the range of issues covered and the frankness of many posters would make it excruciating for many users to be outed.

The person who believes that they have been defamed / libelled might have the right to know the identity of the poster, but not that they also hate their SIL, struggled with postnatal depression, suffer with vaginal dryness and really really fancy Boris Johnson...

It's probably best to assume that anything that you type into your computer:
a - is stored on someone else's computer somewhere
b - would be handed over if there was a court order

I am a little surprised that the court DID say "yes you need to give him these posters' details, but I don't know what they wrote.

I saw it in the fail. I recall the thread . Nothing terrible was written and there was quite a lot of praise for said person too. Worrying that people writing of their experience could possibly be outed.

MNHQ can the FAQ explanation include information about messaging too? The Defamation Act doesn't seem to explain that private messages can be handed over to a third party to further their case but if the articles are correct then that seems to have happened. Tbh I don't understand why so would appreciate clarification too. TIA

"Not if you use a vpn or similar."

Or like I said, use a public computer - you'd only be traceable with CCTV.

My name was tacked to this thread as I was indeed one of the people whose details were requested by Queen Ethelburgas school when they took offence to a thread (which is still there in bowlderised form)

I read up about the defamation act
my personal defence was that I had merely expressed an opinion.
As it was the posts were deleted, not the thread.
No legal action was taken against me in the end.

The silly man in this current case has not realised that he is exhibiting archetypal Dunning-Kruger Effect behaviour
and that the Streisland effect will haunt his business for years to come.

Errol

I've been here 8 or 9 years, and SWMNBN was before my time, IIRC.

Online friends that's an oxymoron